From the upcoming edition of Newsweek. Seems pretty clear that California or national Democratic Party will be suing to stop California effort to pass a ballot initiative to award electoral votes by Congressional district. So having NC do this could hurt the legal arguments I imagine. However, if you read the article, there appears to be a significant difference between the legality of a ballot referendum and legislative action.
Nonetheless, perhaps Mr. Dean was right to put the brakes on our reform, as disappointing as that is for us in NC.
Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Our way of electing presidents has always been fer-tile ground for mischief. But there's sensible mischief—toying with existing laws and the Constitution to reflect popular will—and then there's the other kind, which tries to rig admission to the Electoral College for strictly partisan purposes. Mischief-makers in California (Republicans) and North Carolina (Democrats) are at work on changes that would subvert the system for momentary advantage and—in ways the political world is only beginning to understand—dramatically increase the odds that a Republican will be elected president in 2008...
...At least in North Carolina it's clearly constitutional. Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the selection of electors is up to state legislatures "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." When power is delegated to the electorate in referenda, the legal authority gets fuzzy; the Constitution, of course, supersedes state law. In any event, the Hiltachk referendum will face a challenge in court.